Coyle's new stance on Lance

[DirtyWorks]

??

Coyle didn't "bend" any data, and there is no evidence that anything in the paper is incorrect (except the paper he cited for the method used to calculate delta efficiency).

But hey, carry on propping up your own myths...shame on me for focusing on facts.

Armstrong is FINALLY sanctioned for career-long doping, on top of which, the guy was a super-responder to whatever cocktail he was running is immaterial to the measurements made?

You are just going to pretend the paper works anyway? Have some courage and call it invalid. Because it is. I'll even let you (not Coyle) use the "He tricked us" excuse even though you admitted the research side is aware of the doping anyway.

 

[acoggan]

Armstrong is FINALLY sanctioned for career-long doping, on top of which, the guy was a super-responder to whatever cocktail he was running is immaterial to the measurements made?

No, it's not immaterial - that's why Coyle's recent letter and Wagner's editorial were published.

EDIT: I should have written "...there is no evidence that any of the DATA in the paper are incorrect...", as obviously Coyle's conclusions re. the source of Armstrong's success (which were based on rather weak data in the first place) can no longer be sustained.

You are just going to pretend the paper works anyway?

"Works" in what way? To convey Coyle's observations and his interpretations of them (at the time) to the rest of the scientific community? Absolutely. As some landmark piece of research? It was never that, and it never would have been that even if Armstrong had never doped/had never even been suspected of doping.

Have some courage and call it invalid. Because it is.

I'd call it uninterpretable, not invalid.

I'll even let you (not Coyle) use the "He tricked us" excuse even though you admitted the research side is aware of the doping anyway.

I didn't write the paper, so I don't need any excuses. Thanks anyway, though...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I've never defended his actions - only attempted to help people understand why the paper isn't worth all the histrionics.

Good luck with that.

 

[DirtyWorks]

EDIT: I should have written "...there is no evidence that any of the DATA in the paper are incorrect...", as obviously Coyle's conclusions re. the source of Armstrong's success (which were based on rather weak data in the first place) can no longer be sustained.

That is much better than my "it's junk" explanation. If Coyle had started there, then I would not be driving this point so forcefully.

"Works" in what way? To convey Coyle's observations and his interpretations of them (at the time) to the rest of the scientific community? Absolutely.

So, it's immaterial now more than ever the measured results were hopelessly tangled in doping?

I'd call it uninterpretable, not invalid.

And I'd be good with that too. But that's not what we got. Instead, we get some crazy excuse for the laughably remote possibility the measured values are still somehow legitimate. Which, works out nicely for Wonderboy if he's got to revisit the SCA fraud.

I didn't write the paper, so I don't need any excuses. Thanks anyway, though...

But you are here making excuses for it.

To be clear, I hope it's obvious I agree with some of what you are saying.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

??

Coyle didn't "bend" any data, and there is no evidence that anything in the paper is incorrect (except the paper he cited for the method used to calculate delta efficiency).

But hey, carry on propping up your own myths...shame on me for focusing on facts.

I thought the myth was the improved efficiency of rider X after losing weight after cancer? Weightloss but still the same watts. You know.

Padilla lied with his Indurain BS, Coyle on Armstrong, which scientist is believable? Please, do tell me.

You have been an advocate on Coyle's defence, why should we believe you now? Even if Coyle was right for 60%, he was at fault for 40%, that is no science, and you know it. The good old 5% deviance is acceptable, not this BS.

 

[Race Radio]

I wouldn't go quite that far, since if nothing else it served to stimulate quite a few additional studies.



Dozens of articles?? That's the only one he wrote. (The bit about how this article and Coyle's testimony unfortunately propped up Armstrong's myth I would tend to agree with, but hindsight is always 20-20.)

For someone supposedly not into defending you sure do a lot of it.

Yes, dozens of articles. Coyle's nonsense was featured in dozens of articles in main stream media that helped push the myth that Armstrong was some freak of nature when he was really a pharmacological invention.

 

[thehog]

For someone supposedly not into defending you sure do a lot of it.

Yes, dozens of articles. Coyle's nonsense was featured in dozens of articles in main stream media that helped push the myth that Armstrong was some freak of nature when he was really a pharmacological invention.

What about the freak theory? and "has particularly long thigh bones"!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jul/28/thisweekssciencequestions3

Is the Tour de France winner endowed with a supreme athletic physiology by a genetic freak? Or does he just work harder than the rest?

There is circumstantial evidence for the freak theory. Armstrong has particularly long thigh bones, for instance, making him biomechanically suited to cycling. His heart is a third larger than the average male's. His maximum heart rate is over 200bpm. His VO 2 max (the amount of oxygen the body can use in a given period, a standard measure of aerobic performance) is one of the highest recorded at about 83 ml/kg/min.

All these are factors, but relatively insignificant ones. All professional cyclists, for example, will have much bigger and more efficient hearts than untrained individuals. Most will have VO2 max numbers in the 70-80 ml/kg/min range. Where Armstrong stands out is that he seems to have an innate capacity to train exceptionally hard, recover quickly and reap the fitness benefit.

One study found that between the ages of 21 (when he was already a pro) and 28 (after winning his first Tour), his muscular efficiency had improved by 8%. After surviving cancer, he also became more focused about managing his weight, so that this 8% was actually worth an 18% increase in his power-to-weight ratio - crucial for cycling up the Alps and Pyrenees.

 

[Hugh Januss]

All these are factors, but relatively insignificant ones. All professional cyclists, for example, will have much bigger and more efficient hearts than untrained individuals. Most will have VO2 max numbers in the 70-80 ml/kg/min range. Where Armstrong stands out is that he seems to have an innate capacity to train exceptionally hard, recover quickly and reap the fitness benefit.

Well actually if we simply substitute "medically induced" in place of "innate" that part is pretty much spot on.

 

[thehog]

Well actually if we simply substitute "medically induced" in place of "innate" that part is pretty much spot on.

PLAYBOY : Your coach, Chris Carmichael, has said you're not unique as a physical specimen but that you're pretty special. Isn't your heart 30 percent bigger than normal?

ARMSTRONG: : It's bigger. And my muscles supposedly produce less lactic acid. But you know what's interesting? There's a big artery that runs from the middle of your body to your lower half, down to your legs. I had some scans done, and the doctors couldn't believe it: My artery is three times the size of a normal person's.

He does have a big artery as well...

http://sherylcrow.99k.org/recensioni/lainterviewplayboy62005.htm

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Lol @ long thigh bones vs massive amounts of EPO and blood transfusions.

I know lots of casual observes who look at Coyle's findings as proof that Lance is superhuman. Even once caught, in Victor Conte's recent big interview with Joe Rogan they discuss Armstrong as a freak talent and a huge doper so that must be a legacy of Coyle's BS, not the reality of him being a huge opportunist and doper.

 

[noddy69]

??

Coyle didn't "bend" any data, and there is no evidence that anything in the paper is incorrect (except the paper he cited for the method used to calculate delta efficiency).

But hey, carry on propping up your own myths...shame on me for focusing on facts.

No Evidence that anything he wrote was incorrect ?


Maybe the bits he just made up would be a good place to start. Its common knowledge Its a load of nonsense so really give up trying to defend the indefensible its starting to grate.

 

[Elagabalus]

That's what he said, isn't it?

I don't know. So IS that what he said? Your link is still subscription only.

Is this the same article that Coach Fergie references in his Ed Coyle reconsiders his data on Lance thread?

Coach Fergie writes:

Coyle speculates that the erythropoietin and other doping practices contributed to the training process that saw Armstrong improve his mechanical efficiency over time.

Is that a fair assessment of the content of the article (or perhaps a direct quote from the abstract)?

 

[mattghg]

I don't know. So IS that what he said? Your link is still subscription only.

He did say this:

we can’t be absolutely certain that the improved gross mechanical efficiency and reduced body weight displayed in the subject of the 2005 paper [that's Lance btw] [...] wasn’t somehow influenced by his reported drug use.

Is this the same article that Coach Fergie references in his Ed Coyle reconsiders his data on Lance thread?

Coach Fergie writes:

Coyle speculates that the erythropoietin and other doping practices contributed to the training process that saw Armstrong improve his mechanical efficiency over time.

Is that a fair assessment of the content of the article (or perhaps a direct quote from the abstract)?

No, I don't think that it is a fair summary of what Coyle actually said.

 

[elapid]

A post I wrote from another thread on the same topic in August 2009:

I've discussed this till I've gone blue, but there are also other glaring errors in Coyle's paper that have a marked bearing on his conclusions. Even Jackhammer, the staunchest of LA fans, admitted that a high school maths teacher could see Coyle was wrong.

This is Table 2 from Coyle's paper summarizing his data:

Coyle's conclusions were basically Improved Efficiecy + Weight Loss = 18% Improvement in Power-to-Weight Ratio.

As Kreb's Cycle and Eva Maria have pointed out, the efficiency calculations are highly suspect.

As you can see from the Table 2 data, percentage body fat was not measured in 1999 and lean and gross body weights are actually heavier than either 1992 or 1993. So the weight loss part of the equation is clearly incorrect. (Coyle based his weight loss argument on Armstrong's estimated racing weight of 72-74 kg, which was neither measured and nor was it relevant considering all data is from preseason and not racing season).

As you can also see from Table 2, weight and power are listed which gives power-to-weight ratios of 4.74 in preseason 1992, 4.99 in preseason 1993, and 5.07 in preseason 1999. This results in improvements of 6.9% compared to 1992 preseason and 1.6% compared to preseason 1993 - nowhere near the reported 18%. Again, Coyle comes up with this figure because for 1999 he used the measured preseason power with Armstrong's estimated racing weight rather than the measured preseason body weight.

So when you look at Coyle's conclusions, efficiency is highly questionable, weight loss is incorrect and the improvement in power-to-weight ratio is also incorrect. A fine bit of rigorous scientific study IMO!

Talk about SSDD (well, maybe SSDY)!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The paper was written after Lance Armstrong sued SCA for the bonus money - the trial in which LA employed Coyle as an expert witness.

 

[Microchip]

Obviously

Because it is obvious to anyone that Lance was obese pre-cancer

What an obvious porker

You really should try to read why your mentor wrote instead of making excuses for him

He was clearly eating what Betsy what eating.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

A post I wrote from another thread on the same topic in August 2009:



Talk about SSDD (well, maybe SSDY)!

According to acoggan, you need to blame everything on Coyle's editors and reviewers. All of it is their fault.

 

[Microchip]

Lol @ long thigh bones vs massive amounts of EPO and blood transfusions.

I'd read that his muscles did not absorb lactic acid at the normal rate so he was able to go for longer. This is foolishness too?

 

[dopingectomy]

I'd read that his muscles did not absorb lactic acid at the normal rate so he was able to go for longer. This is foolishness too?

No foolishness at all for someone who doped with testosterone. T administration is known to improve MCT1 and MCT4 in skeletal muscles.

 

[elapid]

According to acoggan, you need to blame everything on Coyle's editors and reviewers. All of it is their fault.

I know. He was saying the same things back in 2009! Doesn't matter what kind of junk science I publish, if it is accepted and published then I'm off the hook and not responsible for the awful methodology and inappropriate conclusions.

 

[workingclasshero]

coggan is continuing to act the scientific clown in his attempts to defend his mate coyle i see

 

[ChewbaccaD]

coggan is continuing to act the scientific clown in his attempts to defend his mate coyle i see

Calling him a "clown" is generous. Clowns inspire pity in some cases and create hilarity in others. Coggan does neither. He just discredits anything he touches.

 

[Microchip]

No foolishness at all for someone who doped with testosterone. T administration is known to improve MCT1 and MCT4 in skeletal muscles.

I see. I thought it was natural, that was what I’d believed before the truth started coming out in the open some years ago.

 

[Zweistein]

Lol @ long thigh bones vs massive amounts of EPO and blood transfusions.

I know lots of casual observes who look at Coyle's findings as proof that Lance is superhuman. Even once caught, in Victor Conte's recent big interview with Joe Rogan they discuss Armstrong as a freak talent and a huge doper so that must be a legacy of Coyle's BS, not the reality of him being a huge opportunist and doper.

Conte is an odd duck. In the interview he reported some very strange things while in prison. It is hard to take him too seriously.

 

[cathulu]

Funny nobody buys Coyle's propaganda piece or Coggan's defence of same. What did Coggan expect from his latest venture into the Clinic??? We would see it his way? LOL!!!